Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> QUOTE: [i]"'Humans are part of the natural world and our locomotor adaptation—bipedalism—cannot be understood outside of its natural evolutionary context," Prang observes. "[b]Large-scale evolutionary changes do not seem to happen spontaneously[/b]. Instead, they are rooted in deeper histories revealed by the study of the fossil record.[/i]" (David’s bold)
> 
> DAVID: [i]This shows how uniquely different we are. we came from apes but we are not apes. My bold above is to show this is a Darwin interpretation.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Yes, it is a Darwin interpretation, and since it is based on the fossil record – which you do not dispute – it is clear evidence that in this particular case, Darwin was right. You seem to think that the very mention of his name invalidates any research that supports him. You are then left with no idea why your God, whose sole purpose was to create H. sapiens, should have chosen to use such an itty-bitty method, when according to you he knows exactly what he wants and has the power to get it through a dabble (think of your favourite pre-whale having its legs turned into flippers before it enters the water). However, with the Cambrian in mind, I agree that the claim you have bolded is far too general.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]My point is the author's 'deeper histories' may simply be viewed as God in action. That certainly fits the Cambrian Gap you have noted.[/i]
> 
> It is a prime example of itty-bitty evolution, proven by the fossil record, though we have always agreed that Darwin was wrong to claim that “Natura non facit saltum”. I’m glad you now accept that Darwin’s itty-bitty theory is at least partly true, and of course you are still left with the problem of how to reconcile this with your own anthropocentric interpretation of evolution as summarized above.